Bacterial Biofilms in Jones Tubes

Eric S. Ahn, Matthew J. Hauck, Jonathan Kirk Harris, Charles E. Robertson, Roger Dailey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE:: To investigate the presence and microbiology of bacterial biofilms on Jones tubes (JTs) by direct visualization with scanning electron microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of representative JTs, and to correlate these findings with inflammation and/or infection related to the JT. METHODS:: In this study, prospective case series were performed. JTs were recovered from consecutive patients presenting to clinic for routine cleaning or recurrent irritation/infection. Four tubes were processed for scanning electron microscopy alone to visualize evidence of biofilms. Two tubes underwent PCR alone for bacterial quantification. One tube was divided in half and sent for scanning electron microscopy and PCR. Symptoms related to the JTs were recorded at the time of recovery. RESULTS:: Seven tubes were obtained. Five underwent SEM, and 3 out of 5 showed evidence of biofilms (60%). Two of the 3 biofilms demonstrated cocci and the third revealed rods. Three tubes underwent PCR. The predominant bacteria identified were Pseudomonadales (39%), Pseudomonas (16%), and Staphylococcus (14%). Three of the 7 patients (43%) reported irritation and discharge at presentation. Two symptomatic patients, whose tubes were imaged only, revealed biofilms. The third symptomatic patient’s tube underwent PCR only, showing predominantly Staphylococcus (56%) and Haemophilus (36%) species. Two of the 4 asymptomatic patients also showed biofilms. All symptomatic patients improved rapidly after tube exchange and steroid antibiotic drops. CONCLUSIONS:: Bacterial biofilms were variably present on JTs, and did not always correlate with patients’ symptoms. Nevertheless, routine JT cleaning is recommended to treat and possibly prevent inflammation caused by biofilms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

Biofilms
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Electron Scanning Microscopy
Staphylococcus
Inflammation
Haemophilus
Pseudomonas
Microbiology
Infection
Steroids
Prospective Studies
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Bacteria

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Bacterial Biofilms in Jones Tubes. / Ahn, Eric S.; Hauck, Matthew J.; Kirk Harris, Jonathan; Robertson, Charles E.; Dailey, Roger.

In: Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 01.08.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ahn, Eric S. ; Hauck, Matthew J. ; Kirk Harris, Jonathan ; Robertson, Charles E. ; Dailey, Roger. / Bacterial Biofilms in Jones Tubes. In: Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2016.
@article{5fe59d2c944042388e17fcc2c31d63d8,
title = "Bacterial Biofilms in Jones Tubes",
abstract = "PURPOSE:: To investigate the presence and microbiology of bacterial biofilms on Jones tubes (JTs) by direct visualization with scanning electron microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of representative JTs, and to correlate these findings with inflammation and/or infection related to the JT. METHODS:: In this study, prospective case series were performed. JTs were recovered from consecutive patients presenting to clinic for routine cleaning or recurrent irritation/infection. Four tubes were processed for scanning electron microscopy alone to visualize evidence of biofilms. Two tubes underwent PCR alone for bacterial quantification. One tube was divided in half and sent for scanning electron microscopy and PCR. Symptoms related to the JTs were recorded at the time of recovery. RESULTS:: Seven tubes were obtained. Five underwent SEM, and 3 out of 5 showed evidence of biofilms (60{\%}). Two of the 3 biofilms demonstrated cocci and the third revealed rods. Three tubes underwent PCR. The predominant bacteria identified were Pseudomonadales (39{\%}), Pseudomonas (16{\%}), and Staphylococcus (14{\%}). Three of the 7 patients (43{\%}) reported irritation and discharge at presentation. Two symptomatic patients, whose tubes were imaged only, revealed biofilms. The third symptomatic patient’s tube underwent PCR only, showing predominantly Staphylococcus (56{\%}) and Haemophilus (36{\%}) species. Two of the 4 asymptomatic patients also showed biofilms. All symptomatic patients improved rapidly after tube exchange and steroid antibiotic drops. CONCLUSIONS:: Bacterial biofilms were variably present on JTs, and did not always correlate with patients’ symptoms. Nevertheless, routine JT cleaning is recommended to treat and possibly prevent inflammation caused by biofilms.",
author = "Ahn, {Eric S.} and Hauck, {Matthew J.} and {Kirk Harris}, Jonathan and Robertson, {Charles E.} and Roger Dailey",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/IOP.0000000000000762",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0740-9303",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bacterial Biofilms in Jones Tubes

AU - Ahn, Eric S.

AU - Hauck, Matthew J.

AU - Kirk Harris, Jonathan

AU - Robertson, Charles E.

AU - Dailey, Roger

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - PURPOSE:: To investigate the presence and microbiology of bacterial biofilms on Jones tubes (JTs) by direct visualization with scanning electron microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of representative JTs, and to correlate these findings with inflammation and/or infection related to the JT. METHODS:: In this study, prospective case series were performed. JTs were recovered from consecutive patients presenting to clinic for routine cleaning or recurrent irritation/infection. Four tubes were processed for scanning electron microscopy alone to visualize evidence of biofilms. Two tubes underwent PCR alone for bacterial quantification. One tube was divided in half and sent for scanning electron microscopy and PCR. Symptoms related to the JTs were recorded at the time of recovery. RESULTS:: Seven tubes were obtained. Five underwent SEM, and 3 out of 5 showed evidence of biofilms (60%). Two of the 3 biofilms demonstrated cocci and the third revealed rods. Three tubes underwent PCR. The predominant bacteria identified were Pseudomonadales (39%), Pseudomonas (16%), and Staphylococcus (14%). Three of the 7 patients (43%) reported irritation and discharge at presentation. Two symptomatic patients, whose tubes were imaged only, revealed biofilms. The third symptomatic patient’s tube underwent PCR only, showing predominantly Staphylococcus (56%) and Haemophilus (36%) species. Two of the 4 asymptomatic patients also showed biofilms. All symptomatic patients improved rapidly after tube exchange and steroid antibiotic drops. CONCLUSIONS:: Bacterial biofilms were variably present on JTs, and did not always correlate with patients’ symptoms. Nevertheless, routine JT cleaning is recommended to treat and possibly prevent inflammation caused by biofilms.

AB - PURPOSE:: To investigate the presence and microbiology of bacterial biofilms on Jones tubes (JTs) by direct visualization with scanning electron microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of representative JTs, and to correlate these findings with inflammation and/or infection related to the JT. METHODS:: In this study, prospective case series were performed. JTs were recovered from consecutive patients presenting to clinic for routine cleaning or recurrent irritation/infection. Four tubes were processed for scanning electron microscopy alone to visualize evidence of biofilms. Two tubes underwent PCR alone for bacterial quantification. One tube was divided in half and sent for scanning electron microscopy and PCR. Symptoms related to the JTs were recorded at the time of recovery. RESULTS:: Seven tubes were obtained. Five underwent SEM, and 3 out of 5 showed evidence of biofilms (60%). Two of the 3 biofilms demonstrated cocci and the third revealed rods. Three tubes underwent PCR. The predominant bacteria identified were Pseudomonadales (39%), Pseudomonas (16%), and Staphylococcus (14%). Three of the 7 patients (43%) reported irritation and discharge at presentation. Two symptomatic patients, whose tubes were imaged only, revealed biofilms. The third symptomatic patient’s tube underwent PCR only, showing predominantly Staphylococcus (56%) and Haemophilus (36%) species. Two of the 4 asymptomatic patients also showed biofilms. All symptomatic patients improved rapidly after tube exchange and steroid antibiotic drops. CONCLUSIONS:: Bacterial biofilms were variably present on JTs, and did not always correlate with patients’ symptoms. Nevertheless, routine JT cleaning is recommended to treat and possibly prevent inflammation caused by biofilms.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84980416307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84980416307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000762

DO - 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000762

M3 - Article

C2 - 27487729

AN - SCOPUS:84980416307

JO - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0740-9303

ER -